com. through rJ Communications in new york City. 2002. so it was easy for me to visit their offices and see that they actually existed before sending them a check. I then wrote an essay on private defense—meaning how a free market would handle the problem of foreign military invasion—which I submitted to Jeremy sapienza. which featured articles and a chat forum catering to anarcho-capitalists.500—but I can state with certainty that I didn’t think it would take almost eight years to sell them all!
7
. I wrote a series of articles on private law for the website anti-state. I can’t remember the exact number of copies I had printed up—I believe it was 1. (The title was Jeremy’s idea also. Thus Chaos Theory was born. I combined the private law articles into a single essay mirroring the structure of the private defense piece. The physical book was available by May. and urged me to turn it into a book. and I arranged for robert Vroman—another anarcho-capitalist in his 20s—to do the terrific artwork. Jeremy wrote back that the essay was too important for a magazine with limited circulation.Preface to the second edition
B
ack in late 2001. for inclusion in his printed magazine.) Being an unpublished author and driven by completely unrealistic assumptions of the demand for an underground pamphlet on market anarchy. I was going to grad school at nyU at the time. I naturally elected to self-publish the first edition of Chaos Theory. the editor of the website.

of course. disputes will arise and individuals who have a reputation for honesty.8
Chaos Theory
even though the country was not swept with a libertarian Great awakening as I had hoped. Although a deep thinker needs to explore the philosophical underpinnings of his judgments. it’s still encouraging that we are now in a position to issue a second edition of the book. so that they would appeal to the widest range of readers. a system of private law means that people who can’t come to an agreement on their own will literally seek the opinion of a third party. or natural rights. I think just about everybody agrees it would be nice if we could live in a society without the systematic theft of taxation or large standing armies. “how the heck could the free market provide police and defense services?!” I consciously tried to keep the arguments in the book very practical. I still think the essays are a good introduction to someone who wonders. I thought these higher questions were actually irrelevant to the main issues in Chaos Theory. the only serious shortcoming I see (given the constraints I faced) is that I jumped into the details of the operation of a market-based system of private law. in a modern western economy. when it comes down to it. stripped to its essentials. utilitarianism. based on objectivism. and wisdom serve an important function in adjudicating or refereeing these disputes. Most of the other introductions to anarcho-capitalism first argue for a particular value system. without realizing exactly what it was that private judges really do. although my own views have matured since its original publication. fairness. yet the essence of the judge would remain the same as in a more primitive setting:
. Whether or not people have signed contracts beforehand or even met each other. lest civilization itself collapse. truly private legal systems would lead to specialized training and contractual codifications of the judge’s role in rendering opinions on the cases brought before him or her. rereading the essays now. The problem is not one of principle so much as one of pragmatism: Most people believe (incorrectly) that the government simply must provide law and defense services.

In my experience. the case for anarchocapitalism or “market anarchy” seems obvious. For an analogy. whether the law was understood as tribal customs passed down over the generations. an economist can discuss the market for geometry textbooks without explicitly taking a stand on whether euclid’s proofs are “really” universally valid or if they instead are popular only because they are useful for building bridges and other engineering tasks. With these clarifications in mind. In the same way. without delving into the difficult question of what the ideal legal code would look like—or if such a thing even exists. versus a more open-ended “the right law is whatever the market says it is” approach of some other thinkers in this area. as an economist I can explain the advantages of a private. or instead as a web of voluntary contracts and profitable practices as they spontaneously evolved in a modern capitalist society. I hope the reader will enjoy the following essays. I am sketching the market forces that operate one step above this level of analysis.Preface
9
The judge’s job would be to opine on what “the law” had to say about a particular dispute. These are important issues. robert P. but I think they are tangential to the case for private law. once we simply imagine the possibility of a society without the state. to be sure. One final point I want to clarify is that I am not here taking a position on the proper scope for a priori constructions of legal theory. competitive legal system versus a coercive government system. Murphy December 2009
.

.

Illustration: robert Vroman
.

.

we note that true pacifism—the refusal to engage in violence—implies anarchism. They simply assumed that the market is incapable of defining and protecting property rights. “FreeDoM Is sLaVery.” George orwell. even such champions of laissez-faire as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed a government must exist to protect private property and define the “rules of the game. their arguments focused on the necessity of law itself. disputes will be handled relatively peacefully. 13
3
.Private Law
1
w
ithout question. not only will market law be more efficient. since all state action is based on (the threat of) violence.3 The hawks wage endless war to end war. Just as right-wing hawks embrace the orwellian notion that war is Peace. than the government alternative.com. 7. the legal system is the one facet of society that supposedly requires state provision.
1 2
This essay is based on three articles originally featured on anti-state.” however. left-wing egalitarians believe that slavery is Freedom. Although market anarchism is thus not pacifism. I argue that the elimination of the state will not lead to lawless chaos. Voluntary institutions will emerge to effectively and peacefully2 resolve the disputes arising in everyday life. They were wrong. 1984). In this essay. force may occasionally be required. 1984 (new york: signet Classics. p. More accurately. it will also be more equitable. In the original. while the social democrats engage in massive theft—or “taxation” as they call it—to eliminate crime.

The laws in each of the fifty states are different. then I agree to pay whatever restitution that agency X deems appropriate. If I get caught stealing. such a system never existed. see Linda and Morris Tannehill. as established by Arbitration Agency X. It took no king to produce language. because the legislature says so. and the difference in legal systems between countries is even more pronounced.
5
. 1978). For example. A prospective employer knows that if I steal from his firm. and it takes no government to produce a just legal system. 1984). They believe the “just” system of property rights is deducible axiomatically. For a New Liberty (new york: Collier. he can notify the government and it will punish me. the employer would make him sign a document5 that had clauses to the effect of. The Market for Liberty (new york: Laissez-Faire Books. or science. it is currently a crime to steal. “I promise not to steal from the acme Firm. money. yet we go about our daily lives. so before hiring an applicant. without too much trouble. nonetheless. we must abandon the idea of a mythical “law of the land. employers would still like some protection from theft by their employees.”
4
a free society is one in which property rights are (generally) respected. I hasten to note that the system of market law that I describe is not entirely congruent with the vision of some other anarcho-capitalist writers. and that objectively valid law will be discovered and enforced by private firms. nor would there be government courts or police. In any event.14
Chaos Theory
It is high time to abandon such monstrous paradoxes.” There doesn’t need to be a single set of laws binding everyone. and even visit and do business with foreign nations. The existence of a State—an institution that uses force to place itself above property rights—thus precludes freedom as we shall use the term. and Murray n. I. For an excellent introduction. But in a stateless society there wouldn’t be a legislated body of laws. ConTraCT First. all actions in a purely free society4 would be subject to contract. rothbard.

Just because an arbitration agency ruled a certain way. and people would lose faith in the objectivity of agency X’s decisions. Specialized firms would probably provide standardized forms so that new contracts wouldn’t have to be drawn up every time people did business.6 But upon consideration. Soon enough. too.
6
an appeals process might be included in the arbitration procedure. suppose that it didn’t. wouldn’t make everyone agree with it. it is completely voluntary. To see this.” with this scheme. the big firm could bilk thousands of dollars from its bad employees before terminating them. if a customer bought something on installment. so that lazy workers (who were going to be fired anyway) were (falsely) charged by the employers with embezzlement. but then the big firm could just bribe those judges. as long as it required (in its work contracts) that people submitted to the suspect agency X. Murphy
15
we immediately see two things in this contract. they could do nothing about it. just as people complain about outrageous court rulings by government judges. and workers would flock to them. Under market anarchy. Other firms would patronize different.
. Potential employees would think twice before working for the big firm. and since the hapless employees had agreed beforehand to abide by the arbitration outcome. the existence of Arbitration agency X ensures fairness and objectivity in any disputes. Suppose that a big firm bribed the arbitrators at agency X. more reputable arbitration agencies. beforehand. it’s easy to see that such behavior would be foolish. while agency X always ruled “guilty. all aspects of social intercourse would be “regulated” by voluntary contracts. the corrupt big firm and Arbitration Agency X would suffer huge financial penalties for their behavior. For example. First. any “laws” binding the employee have been acknowledged by him. Second. The press would pick up on the unfair rulings.Robert P. the store would probably have him sign a form that said something to the effect.

“If I am found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of the deceased. no one would sign such a contract unless he were sure that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or innocence had a strong presumption of innocence. The government doesn’t need to establish the “experts” in these fields.” naturally. the procedures would have to be designed so that there were still a good chance that guilty people would actually be convicted. or dictionaries of the english language.” not corrupt and inept politicians. because all contracts of this sort (except possibly in very eccentric areas frequented by people who liked to live dangerously) would contain such clauses. right now one can buy “definitive” style manuals for writing term papers. legal experts would draft the “laws of the land.” Expertise Under this system. and. It would be the same way with private legal contracts. But on the other hand. even though the evidentiary rules and penalties might differ from area to area. since people don’t want to shop in malls where murder goes unpunished. everybody knows the “rules” of grammar just like everyone would know what’s “legal” and what isn’t. nobody would want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. Murder of course. And these experts would be chosen in open competition with all rivals. one of the most basic stipulations in any contractual relationship—whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood co-op—would be strong prohibitions on murder. one could say that “murder is illegal” in the whole anarchist society. But this is no different from
. In other words all contracts of this type would have a clause saying.16
Chaos Theory
“I agree to the provisions of the 2002 edition standard Deferred Payment Procedures as published by the Ace legal firm.

rental cars. For example. In the same way. Maybe there would be juries. just as we can’t say a priori how many tricycles “should” be made this year. the agency would need a reputation for objectivity and fairness to defendants. Because people would be submitting themselves contractually to the rulings of a certain arbitration agency. would want some means of restitution in the event of theft.7 and no one doubts that “murder is illegal” in the current United states. in reference to other goods and services. we can’t predict this beforehand. so too would the legal procedures be decided by the profit and loss test. we saw above how evidentiary rules would be determined under a system of private law. and so the arbitration agencies couldn’t be too lenient. someone might sign a piece of paper. The market solves this problem everyday. But on the other hand. etc. we let the market take care of it. Profitability the Standard The beauty of this system is that the competing desires of everyone are taken into account.
. except for one nagging problem: How can people afford to pay these outrageous fines? Granted. automatically. only some states have the death penalty. it would be very convenient for customers if a deli were open twentyfour hours a day. So the market system of profit and loss determines the “correct” hours of operation. InsUranCe The contractual system described above seems to work well. II. firms. pledging restitution to his employer if he is caught stealing. as with the hours of a store’s operation. such long shifts would be very tedious for its workers.
7
For example. the owners of stores.Robert P. Murphy
17
our current system. maybe there wouldn’t. But on the other hand.

It would be the same way with all torts and crimes under the system I’ve described.e. and is found guilty by the arbitration agency. the firms’ only responsibility would be to make sure everyone they dealt with carried a policy with a reputable insurance agency. but has no money. since that would be the way to keep premiums down. immediately.. where victims usually get nothing except the satisfaction of seeing the criminal placed behind bars. (Contrast this to the government system. my insurance company does. so too would the experts at the insurance company determine the risk of a certain client (i. Then what? well. his coverage would be dropped. such a person would make a very poor customer or employee.
. it would be extremely useful to keep one’s insurance coverage by always paying the premiums. the victims of a crime are always paid. so too would repeat offenders be charged higher premiums for their contract insurance. since there would be no “legal” recourse if he did anything “criminal. I must pay a stiff penalty. Thus. and why would the person with criminal proclivities care about his insurance company? well. Just as reckless drivers pay higher premiums for car insurance. if I sideswipe someone. if he stopped paying his premiums.” In order to get by in society. Under this system. or rather. the likelihood he or she would violate contracts by stealing or killing) and charge an appropriate premium.18
Chaos Theory
But suppose he steals anyway. and that means it would be in one’s great interest to refrain from criminal activity. People wouldn’t hire him or trust him to browse through a china shop.) There would also be incentives for people to behave responsibly. an insurance company would act as a guarantor (or co-signer) of a client’s contracts with various firms. other firms wouldn’t have to keep tabs on all of their customers and employees. Just as a bank uses experts to take depositors’ money and efficiently allocate it to borrowers. how does our present system of auto damages work? right now. with no one to underwrite his contractual obligations.

The libertarian’s ultimate credo is the non-aggression axiom. I will argue that it is (largely) consistent with this philosophy. PrIson we have now established that a system of voluntary. and it is extremely easy to engage in credit card fraud. because they don’t want to ruin their credit history. and would even work in a society populated with self-interested but ultimately rational people. III. “If I am judged guilty of a crime by a reputable arbi8
In this context.
9
. keep in mind that wherever someone is standing in a purely libertarian8 society. through malice or ignorance. This is the way in which force could be brought to bear on criminals without violating their natural rights. But what about the really tough cases? what about the incorrigible bank robber. A prodigal may run up a huge bill and simply refuse to pay it. For example. even if it weren’t literally signed every visit. or the crazed ax murderer? Surely there will always be deviant.Robert P. yet in most cases nothing physical will happen to him. points of weakness in the libertarian position. But most people don’t behave in such an irresponsible manner. Divergences between the two are. he would be on somebody’s property. although market anarchy (as I will describe it) does not rest upon libertarianism. such arguments seem fanciful. libertarian implies a respect for “natural” rights. contractual law can be imagined theoretically. the agreement would be understood implicitly. namely that it is illegitimate to initiate force. they know they’ll forever more be cut off from this wonderful tool of the capitalist society. antisocial individuals who. But they are no more farfetched than the modern credit card system. Murphy
19
admittedly. If they do. People have huge lines of credit advanced to them. ignore the incentives and commit crimes. how would a system of market anarchy deal with such people? First. the contract9 of a movie theater would have a clause to the effect. I believe. sometimes only by filling out a form.

10
of course. I release the theater owner from any liability should armed men come to remove me from his property. after all. The insurance company would make sure that the “jail” that held him was well-run. so long as its inspectors have determined that the jail will not let its client escape into the general population. but they would deal with him if he agreed to live in a secure building under close scrutiny. If they were. again. the insurance company would be held liable.20
Chaos Theory
tration agency [perhaps listed in an Appendix]. they’d simply switch to a different jail. however. just as travelers can switch hotels if they view the staff as discourteous.” so we see that it is not a contradiction to use force to capture fugitives in a completely voluntary society.10 But where would these ne’er-do-wells be taken. offering high security analogs to the current jailhouse. if someone tried to simply barge onto another’s property. then the owner would be perfectly justified in using force to repel him. it would at least be codified and publicized. Consider: no insurance company would vouch for a serial killer if he applied for a job at the local library. the “jails” in market anarchy would compete with each other to attract criminals. they wouldn’t be beaten by sadistic guards. Later sections will deal with the problem of initially drawing up property boundaries. all such uses would have been authorized by the recipients themselves beforehand. once they were brought into “custody”? Specialized firms would develop. Although this default may seem unilateral. the insurance company (which vouches for a violent person) doesn’t care which jail its client chooses.
. although they would have no chance of escape (unlike government prisons). without agreeing to any contractual obligations. since it pledges to make good on any damages its clients commit. if the person escaped and killed again. on the other hand. there would be no undue cruelty for the prisoners in such a system.

customers wouldn’t show ID every time they entered most stores. at least for people without a criminal history. in an established anarchist society. Many residential and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried valid policies before allowing them to even enter. the premiums for basic contract insurance. greatly restricted. on the other hand.12 so we see that those without insurance would have their options. just as in our present society people don’t draw up labor contracts every time they hire the neighbor’s kid to mow the lawn.13 so there
11
Many of these points were inspired by fruitful discussion with Matt Lasley. Such a statement brings to mind the horrors of identification papers and checkpoints. and Dan Mahoney. individuals do not possess an inherent “freedom of movement. the insurance company is pledging to compensate the estate of anyone killed by its
12
13
. and people would be reluctant to deal with him except for single transactions involving small sums. David Pinholster. Chris redwood. the objections do not necessarily reflect the views of these thinkers. To repeat: under this system everybody would buy homicide insurance.11 “What about someone who has no insurance?” If an individual didn’t carry insurance. or a credit card. I will deal with some common (and valid) concerns. DoUBTs Although superficially coherent and workable. just as right now surgeons buy medical malpractice insurance. however. would be quite low.” If owners wish to restrict the people who travel on their roads. state abuses should not discredit the valid concerns of property owners. a bank loan. In the interest of brevity.Robert P. stephan kinsella. However. stephen Carville. including their freedom of movement. as argued most notably by hans hermann hoppe. such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion. that is entirely their prerogative. Murphy
21
IV. the proposed system of market law will certainly engender skepticism. at the same time. he would probably be unable to get a full-time job. other people would have no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their property.

he would still be chased by detectives. say.14 Warring Agencies Critics often dismiss private law by alleging that disputes between enforcement agencies would lead to combat—even though this happens between governments all the time! In truth. In any event. $10 million. Those agencies interpreting the law would not be the same as the firms enforcing it. once someone (without insurance) had committed a serious crime. they would have the full right to arrest him. Unlike government soldiers. There is no intrinsic reason
clients. the incentives for peaceful resolution of disputes would be far greater in market anarchy than the present system. And if these (far more efficient) private detectives found him at any time on a normal piece of property. those engaging in “warfare” in a free society would be treated as any other murderers. It’s true. then the company would only need to charge roughly $10 per year to break even. most property would have a clause in which all guests agreed to submit to arrest if the guests were “wanted” by a reputable arbitration agency. private mercenaries would receive no special privileges to engage in condoned violence. say. Combat is very expensive. If the company’s actuaries estimate that a potential client has. just as he would be under the government system. only a one in a million chance of killing in the next year. Furthermore.22
Chaos Theory
wouldn’t be very many people walking around without this type of insurance. his premium would also be small. but such cases are going to occur under any legal system. some people would still commit crimes and would have no insurance company to pay damages. Because the probability of an individual (with no prior record) being convicted of murder in the next year is very small.
14
As explained in section III. and the standard damages for murder are.
. and private companies take much better care of their assets than government officials take care of their subjects’ lives and property.

all of the businesses traditionally associated with organized crime—gambling. the private companies providing legal services would have far less power under market anarchy than the government currently possesses. “Your insurance companies would become the State!” on the contrary. this would become quickly
15
This statement does not hold for the systems of private law (elaborated by other anarcho-capitalists) in which agencies unilaterally punish anyone harming their clients. In such a system. not the free market. which (in their modern form) are anything but voluntary organizations. “Won’t the Mafia take over?” It is paradoxical that the fear of rule by organized crime families causes people to support the state. this would be a drop in the bucket compared to the taxation and wartime deaths caused by governments.” If a particular insurance company were reluctant to pay legitimate claims. But even this concedes too much. the lack of a monopolist would create an additional theoretical problem for the advocate of private defense agencies. loan sharking. The mob is also strengthened by unions. prostitution. Most obvious. there would be no power to tax or to monopolize “service. however.15 any more than battles between the government army and navy. Murphy
23
to worry about battles between private enforcement agencies. true professionals would drive out such unscrupulous competitors. which is the most “organized” and criminal association in human history. even if it were true that under market anarchy. even here the incentives for a peaceful resolution of legitimate disputes are tremendous.Robert P. people had to pay protection money and occasionally get whacked. For the mob derives its strength from government.
16
. drug dealing—are prohibited or heavily regulated by the state.16 In market anarchy.

and people would take this into account when dealing with clients of this disreputable firm.18 Children The question of children is one of the most difficult. yes. but people don’t like going to work everyday. politicians and other government employees do not exercise much care in maintaining the (market) value of the property in their jurisdiction. let us note that. the point that maximized revenues. insurance companies are bureaucratic and overbearing. overlooks the true causes of state mischief. It would never be profitable for anarchist insurance and legal firms to mimic the policies set by governments. total war—are not only monstrous. As a first pass. For the sake of argument. everyone agreed to give the landlord the power to “tax” earnings. it will eventually go out of business. either. but they’re also grossly inefficient. Furthermore. obviously. This doesn’t mean the free labor market isn’t a viable system.” i. shareholders of a private company. however. Because it is influenced by non-pecuniary motives.24
Chaos Theory
known. concerned parents would only
17
It may be true that currently. insurance companies don’t like paying damages.. rather than with their nature as such.
18
. the duration of their rule (and hence control of these resources) is very uncertain. Unlike feudal monarchs. And if an insurance company doesn’t pay its claims. they get fired. let us suppose (quite implausibly) that everyone agreed to sell his or her land to a single individual. if people are lazy. have every interest in choosing personnel and policies to maximize the profitability of the firm. however. the modern state doesn’t respect even this sensible rule. this landlord would never set the tax rate above the “Laffer point. and that as part of the lease. who then became landlord of the entire population. democratic rulers don’t actually own the resources (including human) that they control.17 The fear that (under market anarchy) private individuals would replace politicians. police brutality. But I think this has more to do with their close relationship with the government legal system. For these reasons.e. All the horrors of the State—onerous taxation. Even so.

and live in those apartments or housing complexes.20 although seemingly crass. before abandoning her career to raise a man’s children.19 another point to consider is the enhanced role of adoption in a free society. a woman may require a financial pledge in case of divorce (i. a standard clause in marriage contracts could define and specify penalties for the improper treatment of children.” in which parental privileges were sold to the highest bidder.Robert P. Yet this should be sufficient for most cases.” they could of course set any rules they wished. there would be a fully functioning “baby market. dissolving the partnership). In addition to whatever romance may be entailed. I personally am sympathetic to the notion that so long as a child can support him or herself. These voluntary solutions would be far preferable to the government approach. The only problem arises when a child runs away. where the protection of their children was of paramount importance to the staff.. a marriage is ultimately a partnership between two people. abusive or negligent parents are probably the ones most likely to offer their children for adoption. the basic “prohibitions” on parental child abuse and neglect could be stipulated in the marriage contract. of course. “living under their roof.
20
21
. after all. and prudent couples will officially spell out this arrangement. For example. Beyond this. if at least one of the partners is concerned for the welfare of future children. since surely very few couples dream of becoming abusive parents. Much as it shocks modern sensibilities. In the same way.21
19
This device only works. with all of its benefits and obligations. I am purposefully skirting the question of whether parents would legally “own” their children. so long as a child voluntarily remained with his parents. when loving couples are allowed to pay them handsomely for it.e. and does not wish to return. such a market would surely reduce child abuse. in which ill-informed and often self-righteous “social workers” rip families apart and place children in the horrible foster care system. Murphy
25
patronize those schools. parents can’t force the child to return home.

what guarantees does he have? This is a complex issue. of course. Must the economist predict beforehand whether and how many shopping malls will exist under his proposal? For example. just as other conflicts in a private law system.23 I can. one firm might issue land titles for an entire city. but actually delegate the delimitation of the respective rights of two neighbors to a different firm specializing in residential affairs. hierarchical web of such firms. who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house. Those people sufficiently horrified by the practice could establish a gated community in which all residents agreed to refrain from abortion. they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other.22 Title Registry In market anarchy.26
Chaos Theory
The controversial issue of abortion. and to report anyone caught performing one. either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex.
23
24
. offer some general remarks. whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law. but imagine that a Cuban economist advises Castro to abolish socialism and allow a free market to develop. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles. however. and I won’t be able to give specifics. My stance may appear slippery.24
22
This would not prevent others from forming a community in which abortion were legal. since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community. would be handled by competing firms setting policies to best match the desires of their customers. the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian.

and will be addressed in the next section. “how are these titles initially defined and allocated?” This is a broad topic. First. But to deal with the issue as it relates to the alleged infinite regress. just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions. it is an entirely different question to ask.Robert P. it would go out of business. now. smith can’t sell Jones a car for a certain sum of money. is completely unfounded. Murphy
27
The fear of rogue agencies. Infinite Regress a sophisticated critic may charge that my proposal rests upon a circular argument: How can people use contracts to define property rights. More important. unless it is established beforehand that smith is the just owner of the car (and Jones the owner of the sum of money). then a contractual system governing the exchange of those titles would form a stable basis for private law.
. let us consider contract law.25 To see the solution. we must break the problem into two parts.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market. “Could the free market provide a foundation for social interaction?” I believe the previous sections have demonstrated this. unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything. I have shown above that if we had a system of property titles recognized by competing firms. That is. competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances. when a system of property rights is necessary to determine which contracts are valid? after all. we should ask. the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights.
25
The knowledgeable reader may notice that this objection—and its solution—are similar to the alleged infinite regress involved in a marginal utility explanation of money demand. In market anarchy.

and that the signers to a contract were of sufficient age and sobriety. every case will ultimately depend
26
The purist might object that this remedy is insufficient. much as tort law or constitutional law. “we will make good on any debts that our client fails to pay. It is used. just as I don’t predict they will need to be versed in economic theory before using money. and were not under duress. as mentioned in the Foreword. the precise rules governing contract interpretation would be determined by the (possibly conflicting) desires of everyone through the profit and loss test.
. or how obvious the precedents. I am really just describing the world I envision under market anarchy. for example. so long as the obligations have been spelled out in a valid contract. I do not predict that people will have trouble adopting the convention of contracts (even without a proper philosophical definition and justification). The contractual pledges made by individuals would contain provisions for all of the contingencies handled by today’s contract law. keep in mind that the ultimate judge in a given case is…the judge. Finally. Despite the occasional normative statement. when the contract was made. and in such a world. according to the terms described in the standard Contract Law pamphlet published by the Ace legal firm. to determine whether a contract between two parties is legally binding. After all. now surely contract law can’t be established in an anarchist system of contractual law. the insurance company backing up a customer would be promising. notarized oversight for large sums. I am simply assuming that people know what the concept of a contract is.28
Chaos Theory
Contract law is a specific branch of law.26 as with all elements of private law. my purpose in this essay is not to “prove” the ethical superiority of market law. no matter how voluminous the law books.” This pamphlet would perhaps require signatures in black ink. For example. for wouldn’t this beg the question? no. To this charge I plead guilty.

only in a competitive. Murphy
29
on the subjective interpretation of an arbiter or judge who must deliver the ruling.s. and consequently no single description will do.Robert P. It would be “obvious” that people retained ownership of their homes (and
28
29
. with one stage of
27
In a private legal system.27 we must never forget that written statutes as such are powerless unless used by competent and equitable individuals. intuitive notions of justice would constitute the foundation for a system of private law.29 The process would be continuous. voluntary system is there any hope for judicial excellence. while in the latter. there still would be publicized laws and adherence to precedent. such universal. In the former. The path taken by north korean market anarchists will no doubt differ from the course of similarly minded individuals in the United states. must possess a basic degree of respect for property rights.28 even rapists and murderers know this. contractually defined rights to evolve. even if such respect is given due to custom rather than intellectual appreciation. of course. To illustrate: suppose that the distribution of this book causes every U. all societies. The one thing all such revolutions would share is a commitment by the overwhelming majority to a total respect of property rights. a gradual and orderly erosion of the state is a wonderful possibility. Private firms would arise to codify the property titles that were previously regulated by government agencies. citizen to endorse market anarchism. violent overthrow of unjust regimes may occur. all people know that it is a crime to rape or murder. the major hurdle of anarchism is to convince people that murder is wrong even when duly elected “representatives” order it. “How do we get there?” The route to a free society will vary according to the history of a region. no matter how despotic their rulers. for this would allow greater predictability in rulings and hence appeal to customers. This widespread agreement would allow for more specific.

notice that at no point is a violent monopoly needed to achieve this orderly outcome. through their patronage of competing judicial and insurance firms. newly arriving miners during the California gold rushes respected the claims of earlier settlers. (For a different example.
. he will simply deny that he committed one. is to appoint official referees to apply the “law” (which they too unthinkingly respect). despite the lack of a formal government. even inner city toughs unthinkingly obey the “rules” in a pickup game of basketball. For example. regular people understand the waste and senselessness of conflict. contractual solution to the more difficult problems. they will go to great lengths and make great compromises to achieve consensus. such as assigning titles to government housing projects (since both tenants and taxpayers might claim rightful ownership). Those antisocial individuals who disrupted the process (by blatantly violating obvious property rights) would be dealt with in the ways described earlier. etc. To take a more modern example. would foster a humane and just legal system. for games deemed important enough to warrant the extra cost and hassle. free individuals.
30
The reader may consider this a poor example. say. Legal Positivism? some readers may wonder how I can propose a replacement for the State’s “justice” system when I haven’t first offered a rational theory of the source and nature of legitimate property rights. cars.
mortgages). an NBA game. This basic framework of property would then allow for a voluntary.) now. since after all fouling is more flagrant in outdoor courts than in.30 In market anarchy. the market solution to such ambiguity and bias. despite the lack of a referee. But this is the point: There still is such a thing as a foul (and other rules) recognized by the transgressor in a pickup game. no player would claim that his shot should be awarded ten points.30
Chaos Theory
codified property titles and legal rules forming the basis for the next generation of judges and scholars to systematize and extend.

an analogy may be useful: For a variety of reasons. I say this even though I cannot construct an a priori theory of a proper education. however. this accusation of violence may seem hypocritical.31 Murder isn’t wrong merely because it fails the market test. But “the market” is just shorthand for the totality of economic interactions of freely acting individuals. not on the content of such law. we can all agree—contractually—to refrain from murder. If a person (whom everyone agrees is not a criminal) started a legal or insurance firm that infringed on the State’s monopoly. we know we are not violating anyone’s rights. say. There is widespread distrust of allowing the market to “determine” something as crucial as. the state requires the threat of violence on admittedly innocent people.32
31
Because I am not advocating pacifism. it would punish him. nonetheless. now. of course not. But its intrinsic immorality will find expression through market forces. after all. Nonetheless. However. To allow the market to set legal rules really means that no one uses violence to impose his own vision on everyone else. and to abide by the decisions made by an arbiter should we be tried for such a crime. even though I cannot list the necessary and
32
. rich and poor. after we have reached such agreement and are secure in our lives. prohibitions on murder. I can still say that a market system of private law would work far more effectively than the state alternative. their tracts might influence the judges’ decisions. we can let the philosophers and theologians argue about why murder is wrong. Legal scholars offering a priori constructions of just law would certainly have a place in market anarchy. Murphy
31
The answer is simple: I don’t have such a theory. In this way. I am confident that the market system will be better than the state’s approach. in this essay I focus on the market forces that will shape private law. I am quite confident that private schools would provide excellent education for all children. now.Robert P. and that the standard objections to anarchy are unfounded. I oppose public schooling and advocate its immediate abolition.

that in the long run. now I would like to illustrate the versatility of such a system in a wide variety of areas. Product Safety one of the most common charges against pure laissez-faire is that a completely unregulated market would leave consumers at the mercy of ruthless businessmen. food would be poisonous. just as individuals would likely need to be backed by a large insurance company before anyone would do business with
sufficient conditions of goodness (in this context). such critics might concede.33 It’s true. part of the package would be a guarantee such as. nothing guarantees that the market solution will be optimal. as with other areas of law. I believe the market would deal with these sorts of cases through contractual pledges. television sets would explode. when a consumer bought something. we are told that without benevolent government oversight. And of course. aPPLICaTIons so far I have concentrated on the crucial issues in a theoretical discussion of private law. as determined by a reputable arbitration agency. shady companies would eventually go out of business.” and. and many apartment buildings did collapse in statist Turkey after a mild earthquake. and apartment buildings would collapse. if the parents in a certain town were evil or stupid. after all.
. the customer is entitled to the standard damages. on top of forfeiting future customers. and contrast its performance with the monopolized government alternative. But surely someone who sells a deadly hamburger should be immediately punished for this. then market incentives would lead to (what we would consider) horrible curricula. “If this product causes injury.
33
I point out in passing that television sets did explode in the Soviet Union.32
Chaos Theory
V.

All a flier needs to do is make sure that when he buys a plane ticket. pilots are rested. but only if you follow our safety procedures. etc. the Faa itself will get more funding. The Faa too sets up guidelines. keep meticulous maintenance logs. In contrast. But this is nonsense. the insurance company will gladly pay for preventive efforts if this will lead to a greater savings in expected payments of claims to those killed in a crash. our airline will pay your estate $y million. and they’d have to be experts in airplane maintenance to see which companies were best. and if we catch you violating your agreement. under a free market customers would have to keep statistics on how many crashes each airline had. Let’s take the case of air travel. but what are its incentives? If there is a plane crash. he’d be perfectly free to buy a computer from a firm that did not carry insurance. work out an adequate pilot screening process. we will fine you accordingly. so too would businesses need to be insured against possible customer lawsuits. It would thus be in the great interest of most people to only do business with companies that had their contracts backed by large. it is they who will hire trained inspectors. since the insurance companies stand to lose millions if the planes of this airline crash. etc.
. so customers don’t need to worry about their planes crashing.34 we immediately see that this system avoids the nightmare scenarios cooked up by proponents of government regulation. reputable insurance companies.” now. etc. since everyone will say
34
If an individual liked to live dangerously. But if something went wrong. allow our inspectors to look at your planes. “If you are killed in a plane crash. if they wanted to attract customers. Murphy
33
them. we will underwrite your contractual pledges to customers.Robert P. They would say to the airlines: “yes..” Since they are out to maximize profits. This stands in sharp contrast to the present system. part of what he buys is a pledge (backed by an insurance company) saying. it would be much more difficult for him to get his money back. many people allege. The Federal aviation administration “guarantees” that airplanes have had proper maintenance.

Let’s use the example of medicine. without its monopoly. patients would be at the mercy of quacks. so that there will be too many mid-level managers and not enough inspectors. it is again the insurance companies who would make sure the doctors they were underwriting were in fact qualified. and would be butchered on the operating table. the benevolent government must establish guidelines—backed up by guns—to limit those who enter the medical profession. Bloated government agencies always mismanage their resources. such a system would be far preferable to the present one. Concerned consumers would then patronize only those doctors endorsed by reputable associations. as it is. which requires immense schooling and training to artificially restrict the number of doctors in order to drive up their salaries (and health care costs in general). patients would require contractual pledges for restitution in the event of injury. Since they’d stand to lose millions in malpractice suits. there is no benchmark against which to compare the Faa’s oversight. but the bureaucratic Faa would take years to implement it. allowing only qualified doctors into their ranks. since there is no competition. Ignorant consumers would go to whatever brain surgeon charged the lowest price. This of course is nonsense. Voluntary organizations would probably arise. In this case. the insurance companies would be very careful when setting their standards. the american Medical association is little more than a glorified union. some lowly mechanic might have a great idea to improve airline safety.34
Chaos Theory
the crash shows how awful the “free market” in airplanes is. Without government regulation. Professional Licensing Closely related to the area of product safety is professional licensing. the aMa would be unable to check the growth in “alternative”
. Before undergoing risky procedures or ingesting prescribed drugs. Most important. many believe. To prevent this.

such as herbal. one must also realize that the incentives of the Food and Drug administration render it far too conservative: If people die because of a new drug that the FDa has approved. The standard arguments over gun control go like this: opponents say gun control will render people defenseless against criminals and leave citizens at the mercy of their government rulers. But if people die because the FDa has not approved a new drug. hospitals. Consequently. surely some preventive measures are justified in the public interest. I feel a bit silly arguing that people should
. however. the sickness itself will be blamed. Certainly we cannot trust the government to protect us once it has disarmed us. I’ll give the best example I can think of to demonstrate the difference between the conventional libertarian approach and my own: gun control. as we’ll see. argue that this position is too dogmatic. without unconditional guarantees of abstract rights. In a purely free market. only when someone has actually used his gun against innocents can the law rightfully step in. and the government. it seems there would always be a danger of smuggling the state in through the back door. the FDa will be blamed. many potentially life-saving drugs are currently being withheld from dying patients. I don’t think my approach is inconsistent with the libertarian creed. that sidestep the current cozy alliance of big pharmaceutical companies.Robert P. But on the other hand. Proponents of gun control. Rather than dance around such issues. but I do think it will (at least initially) make many libertarians uncomfortable. Gun Control I realize that many libertarians find certain aspects of my system a bit unnerving. I think both sides have legitimate points. Murphy
35
therapies. it won’t be held accountable. As with most debates held within the context of a government legal system. patients would be allowed to take whatever drugs they wanted.

biological. either he will directly pay the damages or his insurance company will.” recall that the penalties for injury and murder would be established by contractual pledges. This approach is superior to the governmental one. his insurance premiums will be accordingly higher. the company will be very interested to know whether smith keeps sawed off shotguns—let alone atomic weapons—in his basement. (a strict interpretation of many libertarian arguments would mean just that. say. and so his premiums will be that much higher. underwritten by insurance companies. since the insurance companies would be out strictly to make profit. People allow Joe smith onto their property because they know if he hurts someone. on the other hand. the risk of a client who kept nuclear (or chemical. as far as the insurance company is concerned. and it
. The insurance company makes its money by charging appropriate premiums. But there are other factors that an insurance company would take into account when setting premiums. tailored to the individual client.36
Chaos Theory
be able to stockpile atomic weapons in their basement. kids couldn’t buy bazookas at the local k-Mart. In fact. besides past behavior. there wouldn’t be the slippery slope that there is now with all government gun control. someone who keeps such weapons is much more likely to harm others. the system of private law that I’ve described allows us to sidestep this apparent “tradeoff. If Joe smith has been deemed guilty in the past of violent behavior.) weapons would be so great that probably no policy would be offered. if the insurance company is going to agree to pay. $10 million to the estate of anyone Joe smith kills. we would never fear that all handguns would be banned.) Fortunately. etc. Truly dangerous weapons would be restricted to individuals willing to pay the high premiums associated with their ownership. and one of these factors would undoubtedly be: what sort of weapons does this client keep around the house? after all.

you can’t own a bazooka. then gun owners will shop around for a different insurance company. which has no accountability.” Conservatives like to complain about cases where a known murderer is set free by a bleeding heart judge. and it is thus perfectly within their rights to make such a request. simply because the police coerced a confession or forgot to read the suspect his rights.36 This is far preferable to the government system. The insurance companies are the just owners of their money. those “regulating” guns would be completely voluntary. households with conventional firearms might enjoy lower premiums. If a particular insurance company is staffed by people who fear guns. nothing happens to them. Murphy
37
would be far more profitable to allow people to keep handguns and pay slightly higher premiums. To charge higher premiums to those who wish to own multiple weapons is no more unjust than the present practice of offering discounts to drivers for taking a driving safety class. If politicians ban guns and cause thousands of people to be victimized by crime. they will switch to a different company and it will quickly go out of business. involving no violation of libertarian rights. all it is saying is this: If you want us to guarantee your contracts with others. or to homeowners for installing an alarm system.
35
In fact.35 as with all contracts under my system. But if an insurance company makes unreasonable demands of its clients.Robert P.
36
. Liberals (such as alan Dershowitz) respond that although such cases are unfortunate. The insurance company is not forcing people to give up their bazookas. Dangerous Criminals The supposed tradeoff between individual liberty and public safety is also exemplified in the debates over legal “technicalities. they are necessary to keep the police in line. if the insurance company thinks this will reduce the incidence of crime in the area enough to justify the incentive.

37 Because he was technically acquitted. It no more discriminates against clients than the present practice of charging young males higher car insurance premiums. I am sympathetic to both sides in this debate. rather. there would still be individuals who were too dangerous to
37
I stress that cases like this are going to happen under any system. even if their driving record is snow white. To see this. or.38 This analysis also resolves the issue of parole. a clearly “guilty” murderer has technically not violated any contractual provisions. again. their only concern would be the likelihood that he would be convicted (of a different crime) in the future. and again I think my system can avoid both sorts of absurdities. the killer’s insurance company could still increase the premiums they charged. or all young black males.38
Chaos Theory
as with gun control. and finds someone innocent of murder despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. the rules governing this episode would be quickly revised to prevent its recurrence. rather than imprisonment. Under a government system.
38
. although most crimes would involve financial restitution. There is another difference. suppose an arbiter—who would only be hearing murder cases because of past excellence in his rulings—for some reason makes an outrageous ruling. this process does not involve a violation of anyone’s rights. the murderer would not have to pay damages to the estate of his victim. because then they’d have to pay the damages.” he could shop around for a different insurance company. private companies would be under much greater pressure than monopoly governments in the face of such bad publicity. If a certain individual were truly being charged a premium higher than he “deserved. because such practices would not be profitable. I am not conceding anything by admitting such possibilities. let’s suppose that through some quirk. I am trying to show the strength of my approach by explaining its response to such cases. It wouldn’t matter whether their client had been actually convicted of a crime. someone acquitted on a technicality gets off scot-free. however. But under the private law system I’ve described. we don’t need to fear a roundup of all mentally handicapped people.

39 VI. these ivory tower intellectuals often test out their theories on the hapless victims of recidivist criminals. The arguments of this essay are admittedly incomplete. The main theme running throughout is that competition and accountability would force true experts to handle the important decisions that must be made in any legal system. market law. The insurance companies would determine this threshold. on the other hand. as long as a company were willing to pay for any damages a criminal might commit in the future. I ask that the reader resist the temptation to dismiss my ideas as “unworkable. I am shocked by how many current murderers and rapists commit their crimes while on parole. since they have no accountability. It is a statist myth that justice must be produced by a monopoly institution of organized violence.Robert P. people would offer him work. however. the government has psychologists and other “experts” decide when sex offenders and murderers should be let back on the streets. truly dangerous individuals would not be “paroled. rehabilitation would thus be in the great financial interest of the companies. etc. surely more thought is needed before a move to market anarchy becomes feasible. Murphy
39
be allowed loose. ConCLUsIon This essay has outlined the mechanics of purely voluntary.”
39
when I watch America’s Most Wanted or read books explaining how the FBI catches serial killers. let him rent a room.” without first specifying in what sense the government legal system “works. in order to increase their pool of paying customers.” right now.
.

Illustration: robert Vroman

an analogy will be useful. This essay claims that such a view. rothbard. and in all but the most lopsided contests would slaughter their government adversaries. insurance companies would most likely oversee defense services. though widespread. because a community based on voluntary relations would apparently be helpless in the face of neighboring states. People with an open mind may be genuinely sympathetic to the arguments for a free society. The free market can provide defense more cheaply and more effectively than the government can. It is foolish and reckless to entrust the state with the protection of civilian lives and property.40 To see how this market would operate.Private Defense
V
irtually everyone agrees that a government is needed to provide the essential service of military defense. 1984). yet they regard all the clever blueprints for an anarchist social order as hopelessly naïve. Private defense forces would enjoy a tremendous advantage. For a New Liberty (new york: 43
. See for example Linda and Morris Tannehill.
40
This is the standard view among anarcho-capitalist writers. is completely false. There is nothing intrinsic to military defense that requires state provision. InsUranCe In an anarchist society committed to the sanctity of private property and contract. Murray n. I. The Market for Liberty (new york: LaissezFaire Books.

which kills dozens of people and causes billions of dollars in property damage. the greater its expense. 1978). It is crucial to realize that the behavior of the residents greatly influences the city’s vulnerability to earthquakes. yet to be imagined. insurance companies may not be the vehicle actually used in a real anarchist society: there could exist an even better market solution. esp. Policyholders pay a fixed premium. Their entry would drive insurance premiums down towards the actuarially fair rates. roads. To cope with the risk of such disasters.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 14:1 (winter 1998–1999). and bridges can be designed with varying degrees of structural integrity and construction costs. even though these thinkers have outlined a feasible mechanism for private defense.44
Chaos Theory
Imagine a large city located on a major fault line. insurance companies provide incentives for safer designs. every so often. and thus calculate the minimum premiums that would allow the insurer (all things considered) to break even in the long run.
. people purchase insurance for their lives and property. The force of competition keeps the price of such insurance reasonable. while the insurance agencies pledge to indemnify the estates of anyone who suffers bodily or financial harm during an earthquake. Actuaries can estimate the expected costs per period of providing certain levels of coverage. Through their premium structure. and hans-hermann hoppe. thus defraying their higher costs. “The Private Production of Defense. and thus the total bill paid out by insurance companies following each disaster. pp. new firms will have an incentive to enter the insurance market to reap the profits. the better the design. Buildings. If the market rates exceed these minimum prices. the residents endure a severe earthquake. according to the precise terms specified in the contract. Profit-hungry businesses will thereby produce buildings and infrastructure exhibiting the optimal combination
Collier. 35–42.

an insurance company will gladly spend funds to protect its clients and their property. the insurance companies can construct shelters. (For simplicity. They might employ teams of seismologists to forecast earthquakes and publicize these findings as a service to their customers. a bridge designed by reliable. of course. and that there is one major earthquake per year. Just as the free market can provide the optimal response to dangerous earthquakes. so too can it provide the best protection from foreign militaries. For those clients too poor to afford housing in quake-proof buildings. the clients would be free to disregard these warnings and remain in their (relatively unsafe) homes. and require that these policyholders evacuate their buildings and retire to the shelters in an emergency. while the premium for a reliable bridge would be roughly $150.Robert P. In addition to encouraging sturdier designs. an insurance policy might require that clients tune in to a certain TV or radio station during an emergency.42 In general.000.) note that this preference for the safer design has nothing to do with altruism on the part of bridge owners. who are merely trying to minimize their costs. on the other hand. but would thereby forfeit any compensation should they suffer personal injury during the quake. but in the event of an earthquake will collapse 10 percent of the time. Like natural disasters. and the liability claims from killed customers. we have ignored depreciation of aging bridges. costs $15 million but during an earthquake has only a 1 percent chance of collapsing. For example. so long as the interest rate is no higher than approximately 20 percent.
42
. the time it takes to rebuild a collapsed bridge. The precise arrangement would be specified contractually. (assume the bridges are identical in all other relevant respects. insurance companies could use other means to reduce their exposure. so long as the expected reduction in liability claims is sufficient to justify the expenditure. and follow the instructions.) The annual policy ensuring a shady bridge would be priced at roughly $1 million. wars bring widespread
41
Suppose there are two construction firms. Murphy
45
of durability and price.41 without any need for government codes and inspectors. Shady and Reliable. a bridge designed by shady costs only $10 million. the savings on insurance premiums justify purchasing the safer (yet more expensive) Reliable bridge.

hundreds of small. how could private firms raise the funds required by modern militaries? (After all. The framework described in the first section avoids these apparent difficulties. insurance companies would provide coverage for these losses too. FInanCInG It is easy enough to imagine a system of private mail delivery or even highway construction. II.43 Without the ability to extort revenues from all citizens. decentralized armies would surely be wiped out by a consolidated attack from a neighboring state.) on a practical level. In a free society. ensuring standardized pricing and a coordinated defense.” yet still enjoy the security made possible by his neighbors’ contributions. In contrast.46
Chaos Theory
death and destruction. but rather the insurance companies. any individual citizen could refuse to buy the “product.
43
In mainstream economic literature. Defense from foreign aggression is a classic “public good” and as such seems the perfect candidate for government provision. In economist jargon. Clean air is a prototypical public good. every dollar in damage caused by foreign aggression would be fully compensated. the insurance agencies would internalize the positive externalities (among their customers) of defense spending. and one person can consume the good without reducing its availability to another. and would thus have a great financial interest in deterring and repelling military attacks. it is not the average person. and thus insurers would seek to protect their customers’ property as if it were their own. that would purchase defense services.
44
. a public good is both non-excludable and non-rival in consumption.44 Because of economies of scale. In other words. free market defense presents a conceptual hurdle. In market anarchy. since it is not clear what would be the voluntary analogs to government taxation and military spending. coverage for large geographical regions would likely be handled through a few dominant firms. the seller of a public good can’t limit it to paying customers.

trained personnel. rather than concentrating it in one area. the per capita expenditure on insurance from foreign aggression is $10. suppose we start in an initial anarchist society with no defense services at all. They must therefore collect roughly $100 billion per year in premiums to cover themselves. For example. Investment firms would consider a financial asset’s “location” when assembling their diversified portfolios. say. then they would “pay for themselves.45 The insurance agencies hire geopolitical consultants and believe that the annual risk of attack is ten percent. while the residents would enjoy increased security and lower premiums. the (multinational) insurance companies would still need to indemnify the absentee owners of much of the seized property. the residents remain completely vulnerable. On top of this hefty expense. In this bleak situation.000.000 per person—half the price charged by his competitors.Robert P. such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars. $5. etc. say. with
45
such a scenario raises an interesting question: why would people buy insurance from foreign conquest? what good is it to receive a check for damaged property if it too would be confiscated? One possible market response would be to diffuse ownership over large areas. The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property. Imagine that the one serious military threat is invasion and conquest by a certain mercurial neighbor. Murphy
47
It will be useful to elaborate on this hypothetical consolidation. and be on the constant alert to repel any attacks. an executive at the Ace insurance company has a brilliant idea. and thereby lower the probability of foreign conquest.
. even if a free society fell entirely to a state. If these preparations reduced the chance of foreign invasion to only. For example. one-half of one percent per year. If the society is composed of ten million people. In this way.” The innovative insurance executive would reap huge profits and capture the market for military liability. tanks. he can undercut his rivals and offer the same level of coverage for only. real estate agencies would own property in every major city. he might pay private defense agencies $40 billion per year to maintain helicopters. he can afford to do this by spending some of his revenues on military defenses.

yet Moocher wouldn’t spend a dime on military expenditures. low rates would only apply if a sufficient number of these policies were sold. and how the costs of defense would be split among them. and skyscrapers would dwarf those taken out by individuals. this was only to give the reader a rough idea of the expenses involved. In other words. Free Riders Does the above system really avoid the perennial problem of private defense? That is. banks. the likelihood of property damage would be the same for Moocher’s clients as for ace’s. large firms would provide the bulk of revenue for the insurance industry. This reasoning is perfectly valid. the clients of the insurance companies are not homogeneous. but the special. he would write only long-term contracts. can it overcome the “free rider” problem? after ace Insurance entered into long-term contracts with defense agencies. Consequently. and consequently the market for defense is far more “lumpy” than assumed in standard economic models. there wouldn’t be the nightmarish bargaining problem that so worries the skeptics of private defense. investment and population growth would be stimulated. The brilliant executive at Ace Insurance would be perfectly aware of the above considerations. allowing greater economies of scale and further rate cuts. he would offer a package deal to the major companies. But make no
. There are many interesting issues (studied in cooperative game theory) concerning the bargaining process of these large firms. such as Moocher Insurance. what would stop a rival firm. shopping malls. although above we discussed per capita premiums. yet the case for private defense remains strong. In reality. It is true that this suggested remedy is rather vague.48
Chaos Theory
property safe from foreign expropriation. The policies taken out on apartment complexes. manufacturing plants. from undercutting ace? after all. If necessary. and would make them conditional on the acceptance of a minimum threshold of clients. In the first place.

47 The highest contributors might even advertise this fact. The typical economist who explains why the free rider problem renders private defense impractical also argues that cartels are inherently unstable because of incentives for cheating. as we shall now argue. highways. military equipment—would be far likelier targets of foreign attack. it isn’t obvious that there would even be widespread free riding.Robert P. much as large corporations make ostentatious donations to charity in order to curry goodwill. and their owners would thus constitute an even smaller group to benefit disproportionately from defense expenditures. certain types of property—airports. bridges. Those companies that ended up paying the most might perceive the arrangement as unfair. after all. the biggest companies couldn’t ignore the effect of their own behavior on military preparedness. In any event. Thus we see that the “lumpiness” of a realistic defense industry mitigates the impact of the positive externalities (spillover effects) of military spending. defense services can largely be restricted to paying customers. yet the countries of oPeC always manage to reach an agreement to limit output and distribute the gains. since Moocher’s premiums would be based on the accustomed level of security provided by ace’s defense spending. Because of their size. the only possible harm of free riding would be an “unfair” burden placed on certain corporations.
46
even Moocher Insurance would recognize the dangers of luring too many of these big customers from ace. making an efficient arrangement all the easier to achieve.
47
. power plants. This heterogeneity would weaken further the “spillover” character of defense services. but there would nevertheless always be an arrangement. Because a few critical industries will pay for a basic level of defense regardless of contributions from others. and of course. military defense would be adequately funded. Murphy
49
mistake.46 Furthermore. for the simple reason that shareholders of rich companies are anything but reckless when it comes to money.

yet there is a symmetric counterargument that is generally overlooked. with less resistance. we can even imagine defense agencies providing explicit intelligence to foreign enemies. insurance companies would certainly be able to deploy their military forces so as to limit gratuitous protection for non-clients. It is true that coercive taxation allows governments to acquire immense military budgets. The statist commanders—perhaps after verifying that such reports didn’t constitute a trap—would be delighted to adjust their attacks. naval escorts would only protect convoys of paying customers..48 Government vs. During such protracted struggles. For any meaningful comparison between government and private defense budgets.
48
In the extreme. since private agencies can purchase equivalent military hardware at only a fraction of the prices paid by governments. all other shipping would be at the mercy of foreign fleets. the latter needs to be multiplied severalfold. lest the defense agencies pull their tanks and troops back to a more defensible position. the neighboring state either quickly conquered the anarchist society or was effectively deterred from attacking. since this would allow them to achieve their objective. Most obvious.50
Chaos Theory
In the earlier discussion.
.e. Private Military Expenditures The above considerations show that people living in market anarchy could overcome the free rider problem and raise funds adequate for their defense. and of course. carnage. But this advantage is more than offset by the tendency of governments to squander their resources. i. we treated a foreign invasion as an all-or-nothing proposition. specifying which neighborhoods could be bombed without reprisal. wars can remain in stalemate for many years. In reality. Antiaircraft and missile defenses would only protect those regions in which paying customers owned property. the owners of real estate on the border would always pay for its protection.

and so its $38 million price tag shocks no one. since their employers—the legislators—do not desire frugality. no one has any idea how much an F-14 Tomcat “should” cost. we will review the critique of socialism. a military can spend its funding with virtually no accountability. but only the appearance of frugality to the taxpayers. on the other hand.
. not a single official in the entire government has any personal incentive to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. What few people realize is that this example is typical.s. To appreciate the tremendous advantage that this gives to the anarchist society. Consequently. defense services would be sold in the open market. To this end. Government auditors are under far less pressure than private sector ones. Because of the government’s monopoly. Taxpayers were shocked when an audit revealed that the U.
49
The use of audits only pushes the problem back one step. eConoMIC CaLCULaTIon The first two sections demonstrated that military defense. so I want to stress that it is caused by the very nature of government. then it must justify this theft by spending the money on “the public good.Robert P. the rulers can’t simply pocket the money. not merely the accidents of history. This last point is important. Fierce competition among suppliers and cost consciousness among the buyers would keep the prices of toilet seats as well as fighter jets as low as possible. since their operations are often conducted in foreign lands and shrouded in secrecy. like any other service. can be provided on the free market. it will be useful to first explore the peacetime superiority of private industry versus government planning. If a government raises its funds through taxation.” Except in the most despotic regimes.49 In market anarchy. Murphy
51
Everyone knows that governments are profligate with their money. III. and that military budgets are always a huge component of total spending. Pentagon had spent $600 per toilet seat.

51
. capable of superhuman calculations. the true flaw with socialism: without market prices for the means of production. The entrepreneurs are free to produce and sell whatever goods they wish. but also from a problem of knowledge. from these limited resources. see Ludwig von Mises. without tying pay to performance. government planners cannot engage in economic calculation. could a socialist system succeed. 1981). It took Ludwig von Mises to explain. but the difference lies outside the scope of this essay. and natural resources—the “means of production”—are free to sell their property to the highest bidder. committed to the commonweal—they would also need to be gods. The market economy solves this problem through the institution of private property. although valid. this criticism misses the essence of the problem. the “knowledge problem” (stressed by Friedrich hayek) is not quite the same as the more general calculation problem. there is only a limited supply of labor. only if a new “socialist Man” evolved. strictly speaking. Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. and so literally have no idea if they are using society’s resources efficiently. at any time. capital. socialism suffers not only from a problem of incentives. in what quantities and in what manner. which implies free enterprise and freely floating prices. raw materials. who enjoyed working for his comrades as much as for himself. The ultimate test of profit and loss imposes order on this seeming chaos: If a producer consistently spends more on his
50
For a fuller discussion. Consequently. socialist planners would not need to be merely angels.52
Chaos Theory
The traditional opponents of socialism argued that it had insufficient incentives for the average worker.50 in a 1920 paper. and capital resources that can be combined in various ways to create output goods. The owners of labor. people would shirk and output would be far lower than in a capitalist economy.51 To match the performance of a market economy. a primary function of an economic system is to determine which goods should be produced.

whose subjects enjoy a large degree of economic freedom. as absolute dictator. which allow the producer in question to have a greater say in the use of society’s scarce resources. Because of their monopoly. yet the vast majority of the planners’ decisions—not only of what to make but how to make it—are not so obvious. even in a limited state. even if they truly intended the happiness of their subjects. the armed forces constitute an island of socialism. the individuals to ultimately decide the fate of society’s resources would be selected through the political process. on the other hand. by purchasing resources at a certain price and transforming them into goods that fetch a higher price. IV. not through the meritocracy of the market. would be largely arbitrary. such behavior is rewarded with profits. he will go bankrupt and no longer have any influence on the manner in which society’s resources are used.
. GoVernMenT DeFense The general advantages of private industry over government planning operate just as well in the field of military defense. the planners would have no feedback and would thus be operating in the dark.
52
An example may illustrate the problem: Everyone knows that it would be incredibly “wasteful” to construct a bridge out of solid gold. or vice versa. With no test of profit and loss. a State’s armed forces can bumble along indefinitely. with no benchmark of comparison. Furthermore. To get a sense of the problems involved.Robert P.52 a decision to produce more shoes and fewer shirts. PrIVaTe vs. Murphy
53
inputs than he earns from selling his output. Because the military derives its funding in a coercive manner. none of this is true in the socialist state. In the market economy. the government planners would squander the resources at their disposal. imagine the situation faced by Josef stalin during world war II. the successful producer creates value for consumers. the link between output and consumer satisfaction is severed.

he should use all available steel for the production of military equipment. But how best to exploit Vasily? should he be ordered to kill as many Germans as quickly as possible? surely not. and clearly this required (before their surrender) defeat of the German armies besieging stalingrad.54
Chaos Theory
stalin had at his disposal every resource—including human—in the soviet Union. The wartime goal of expelling the enemy is no different from the peacetime problem of food production. however. yes. Just as a free market in agriculture would have prevented famine. stalin needed to use these resources to achieve his goals. Stalin’s choices become less clear. for with every shot he reveals his position. stalin’s actions led to the deaths of millions of his own people. But how much of this steel should be devoted to planes? to tanks (and which models)? to mortars? to bombs? or to railroads (needed to move materiel to the front)? yes.
. In both cases. But it would also be far too conservative to have him wait months in the hopes of getting one clear shot at a general. there is no need for new tractors at the moment. the foremost of which (we shall assume) was the preservation and expansion of his political rule. some of stalin’s choices were obvious enough. all civilians—young and old. But precisely how many people should engage the enemy? work in tank factories? dig trenches around the city? or forage for food (to ensure survival through the winter)? even those tactical and strategic decisions normally made by military commanders have the same flavor. Clearly he needed to overthrow the nazi regime. a sharpshooter such as Vasily Zaitsev should be used as a sniper. Yes. sick and healthy—should devote their lives to repelling the huns. As we become more specific. rather than as bomber pilot or factory worker. a free market in defense would have prevented such monstrous casualties. It is evident that stalin (or his subordinates) must make all of these decisions and thousands more just like them largely through arbitrary guesswork.

some might hire propagandists and offer bribes to lure defectors. avoiding the arbitrariness of government troop deployment and supply. In a situation comparable to the Battle of stalingrad.) even if—to reduce transaction costs and maximize response time—a single firm monopolized the defense of a region. increasing the overall efficiency of the war effort. (For example. including labor. over time. Individuals left to their own spontaneous devices would try various techniques to produce this “service. the anarchist community would respond in the most efficient manner humanly possible. consumer demand. technical knowledge. they would need to purchase all of their resources. Because they would be operating in a system of property rights. the firm could still engage in internal cost accounting and calculate the profitability of its various branches. They would expand their operations. now that we understand the manner in which insurance companies could objectively and quantitatively appraise military success. Insurance companies would determine the relative value of various military targets.Robert P.” some might buy tanks and hire men to attack the Germans head-on. free competition would ensure that technological and strategic advances were rewarded and quickly
. The market constantly readjusts itself to the changing data: conditions of supply. Perhaps more important. those areas on the front in urgent need of soldiers or ammunition would bid up their wages or prices. and place bounties on them (for capture or elimination). Murphy
55
Private Defense economic calculation allows entrepreneurs to judge whether a plan has been profitable. only the best defense firms would survive. others might hire sharpshooters to snipe at them from afar. some might buy mortars and shell them. This would ensure that the resources were being used as effectively as possible. it is easy to see the advantages of private defense. It allows successful ventures to expand and causes failed operations to disband.

a government military must rely on a bureaucratic chain of command where innovation. This fact rests on the monopoly status of the U. yet private ownership still yields excellent baseball clubs and French restaurants. yes. In contrast. “I’d like to see what your insurance companies would do if they met a Panzer division. plenty of government militaries were obliterated by hitler’s armies. military. Expertise one might wonder whether private individuals would be as knowledgeable about military affairs as government professionals. the incompetence of the latter would be manifest. Savvy executives hire others to identify talented individuals. But a small society of statists would fare even worse—and in fact. If private individuals were allowed to compete with Pentagon generals. Apples and Oranges This theoretical discussion is sure to provoke the cynic to remark.56
Chaos Theory
implemented. surely Colin Powell makes a better general than Bill Gates. especially from outsiders.s. is stifled. we have demonstrated that a private defense system is the most effective. The average stockholder is no expert in professional sports or foreign cuisine. a military confrontation between a statist and a free society would be a war of a few minds versus millions. In a very real sense. not that it is invulnerable. with its sophisticated espionage? Could there be anarchist spies?
. Intelligence even if a military bound by property rights and contract would have fared well in wars of an earlier era. what of modern warfare.” But such a question misses the point. a small society of anarchists would be unable to repel the total might of nazi Germany.

whatever (if any) the loss caused by prohibitions on wiretaps and torture. is a virtue: what better way to avoid military defeat than by showing potential enemies how advanced their anarchist foe would be? The defense agencies in a free society would have nothing to hide from governments. and failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks (despite the discovery of similar terrorist plans as early as 1995). For example. This situation is different from the typical industry. a factory owner wouldn’t hire an enemy diplomat for fear of sabotage. a sudden invasion could then wipe out the private defenders before they had a chance to adapt. failed to predict the collapse of the soviet Union. Consequently. 53 on this topic.54 “Do or Die” The nature of military defense makes it less amenable to the trial and error correction mechanism of the free market. despite its sweeping powers and immense budgets. They would hire analysts and collect information in any way legally possible. they would need to advertise the capabilities of their products. Murphy
57
Private defense agencies would gather research just as any company does. a nation can spend years in preparation for an attack. in which repeated transactions day in and day out
53
The CIa. This openness. But as factory owner such a policy is perfectly within his rights. however. caused the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy. Certain precautions would obviously be taken. Defense agencies would have (possibly) several major buyers and would be operating in an open market. Presumably the most powerful computers and smartest code breakers would reside in an anarchist society. harbored a mole for years. it would be more than recovered in efficiency.”
54
. we note that counterintelligence would probably be quite limited. without receiving any feedback on the quality of its efforts. he wouldn’t need any special “wartime powers.Robert P.

a multinational defense agency55 could provide. To meet this objection.57 high-tech weapons would be stockpiled in central locations. anarchist agencies would hire the best and brightest minds. say. “[A]ll insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements of mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies. in sharp contrast to. It is true that government military officers engage in the same types of behavior. although inadequate strategies or training56 might remain hidden until a sudden disaster.
56
57
. we note that (like professional sports) these contests would be fair. say. providing training in the latest tactics and equipment. on which billions of dollars of pork depend. 36). In such an environment.
55
Hoppe writes. at most only one of the agency’s “franchises” would be lost. but on a far smaller scale than would be the case in a free market. and loaned out to anarchist societies under imminent threat of attack. Expert personnel would be rotated from region to region. while government planners guarded their precious secrets and protocols. a suggestion that would also ameliorate the funding problem. fighter jet services to several insurance companies in various areas of the world. representing a combined economic power which dwarfs that of most if not all existing governments” (p. warren earl Tilson II has proposed that private defense forces could maintain their edge by engaging in televised competition. This sharing—unthinkable among government militaries except in the direst circumstances—would further reduce the costs of private defense.58
Chaos Theory
allow experimentation with various techniques and the weeding out of inefficiencies. unlike their government counterparts. military strategists from all over the world would collaborate in the new art of defense. The others would study the incident and learn to avoid it. need not be limited to regional clients. we must remember that private defense agencies. the Pentagon’s rigged aBM tests.

long-range bombers or subs capable of transoceanic voyages. perhaps more significant. Private defense firms would likely sell their wares to foreign buyers (depending on the legal status of governments in the anarchist courts). insurers would require certain concessions from their customers. In an effort to limit their liability. There would likely be no aircraft carriers. In the first place. The anarchist society would probably not develop or even own nuclear weapons. it would seem that only a nation that can credibly threaten to obliterate its opponents is safe from a first strike. since battles would be fought near or amidst a defense agency’s customers.58 Precision of weaponry would be of paramount importance. say. $1 million for any (innocent) person killed by Defense Firm X. would George W.
58
For example.” The anarchist legal system would operate on the same principles of voluntary contract that underlay the defense industry. Murphy
59
Nuclear Weapons The case for private defense must deal with the possibility of nuclear blackmail.
59
.59 Another.Robert P. In modern warfare. It is hard to imagine that an insurance agency would pledge. Bush be spending $1 billion per month bombing caves in afghanistan if it were his money? These considerations also show why an anarchist society need not fear a foreign government using their own (advanced) weaponry against them. but these would be designed for defensive use. Insurance companies would vouch for individuals and pledge to compensate anyone victimized by their clients. when Firm X held a stockpile of hydrogen bombs. and is not the euphemism as used in government propaganda. Because they would gain nothing from foreign conquest—since this would constitute theft and would be fully prosecuted within the anarchist courts—the owners of defense agencies would have no reason to spend money on weapons that were ill-suited to tactical defense. the term defense has been adopted consciously in this essay. consideration is that defense agencies would most likely be legally prohibited from owning “weapons of mass destruction.

61
62
63
. there are statist societies that currently survive without nuclear devices.60
Chaos Theory
Despite its probable lack of nuclear weapons.63 The only reason certain powers. Although this would be true to some extent.62 V. Maginot’s Line proved to be a bad joke. But note how the critique has changed. Lessons FroM hIsTory The historical record supports our theoretical discussion. By its very nature. General washington’s troops at Valley Forge were absurdly ill-equipped. with no taxation. many lacking shoes. tariffs. Usually the critic of private defense says that it may work in theory but not practice. Proponents of air power were ridiculed in the first World War. Government military campaigns are characterized by gross blunders that would be comical if not so tragic.61 They would surely act to protect it from intimidation by a rival nuclear power. Union generals delayed the introduction of a newer rifle for fear their men would waste ammunition.s.
60
This of course implies that a world of anarchist societies would be free from war. This argument is admittedly an odd one. British admirals stubbornly refused to convoy their ships in response to German U-boats. Most obvious. especially ones with the ability to defend themselves. until their U. the anarchist society remains a viable option. politicians aren’t stupid.60 no state would ever fear attack from an anarchist military. and so there would be no need to preemptively strike it (unlike the Japanese on Pearl harbor). or immigration quotas. allies convinced them otherwise. they rarely destroy lucrative trading partners. after telling its men the tanks were made of cardboard. During the Civil war. Now the critic complains that private defense may work in practice but not theory. The cynic may believe that major governments would perceive a successful anarchist society as a threat. the anarchist society would be a completely harmless neighbor. the anarchist society would be of tremendous value to all major governments. regulation. The Polish army used cavalry against the blitzkrieging Germans. it seems to acknowledge the benefit of some coercive apparatus.

Without lucrative profits.66 Yet this example only proves the dismal imagination of government planners. surely a resilient anarchist society would have used its superior technology and industrial capacity to furnish voluntary armies67 with forts. In reality. cannons. Examples abound of military blunders. Price controls cause not only consumer vexation—through ration cards and “Meatless Tuesdays”—but also reduce output. It is no accident that the freest nations usually win their wars. 1993).
The intelligence failures surrounding Pearl harbor were so monumental as to lend credibility to conspiracy theorists.65 Modern wars are won with material. Murphy
61
such as the United states. due to a problem in the pin mechanism. would also avoid the dangers posed by standing armies. maintain their aura of dominance is that they only fight other governments.Robert P. Price controls are particularly disastrous for countries enduring a blockade. The use of paid soldiers.64 so far we have restricted attention to government militaries per se. horses. direct hits would fail to explode their torpedoes. Bertrand de Jouvenal in his classic On Power argues that the other european countries had no choice but to institute conscription in response to napoleon. further weakening its military effectiveness. silent service captains learned in the early stages of world war II that. of course. It is a statist myth that abuse of rights must be met in kind.
64
The inability of a coalition of the world’s strongest governments to eliminate a single man—osama bin Laden—after months of “resolve” underscores the limits of state power. The manufacturer managed to deny the problem for years before finally correcting it. which governments inevitably use against their own subjects. who viewed their work as just an occupational choice. On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. why would smugglers risk confiscation or even death? Bertrand de Jouvenel. 164. p.
65
66
67
. a state hampers all of its operations with wartime controls. and so they purposely aimed for glancing shots.

“Pizarro. sufficient to repel more numerous yet illequipped and poorly trained conscripts. leading a ragtag group of 168 spanish soldiers. see Jeffrey rogers hummel.68. the southern states should have easily survived northern attacks.
69
70
. and Steel (new york: w. 49). there is no institution with the authority to surrender to a foreign power (see Hoppe. Enslaving Free Men (Chicago: open Court.” see Jared Diamond. with its decentralized institutions. Pizarro captured Atahuallpa within a few minutes after the two leaders first set eyes on each other. a tiny country such as Taiwan can outperform com68
Conscription. p.. the situation would be akin to the Vietnam war with the technological roles reversed. if they have fewer tanks and planes and an inferior organization. In one of the most lopsided military victories in history. with no centralized government. There is nothing magical about government military forces. atahuallpa was in the middle of his own empire of millions of subjects and immediately surrounded by his army of 80. 178–179. Guns. We also note the relative difficulty Napoleon would face in conquering an anarchist (versus statist) neighbor. only allows them to squander their most precious resource. on paper. far from being a valuable tool of governments. it took the British years to subdue Ireland. completely out of touch with the nearest spaniards… and far beyond the reach of timely reinforcements. 68. 1999).000 soldiers. Germs. But their commanders—trained at west Point—eschewed ungentlemanly guerrilla tactics and instead rounded up their able-bodied men and marched them into Union guns. they will lose to their anarchist opponents. In contrast. 1996). the other european states made napoleon’s task that much easier. p. w. was in unfamiliar terrain.62
Chaos Theory
and protective armor. 69 The analogy of France fighting other european powers is inappropriate.… nevertheless. ignorant of the local inhabitants. If a government army ever attacked an anarchist society. By creating a coercive apparatus of taxation and control over their subjects. There would be a clash of cultures similar to the encounter between Pizarro and the Incan emperor atahuallpa. pp. Emancipating Slaves.70 The advantages of private property are as manifest in the production of defense services as with any other. norton & Co.

and embrace total freedom.Robert P. Murphy
63
munist China in the economic arena.
. It could defend itself just as efficiently if its residents would only abandon their faith in government police and armies.

.

Indeed. ordered anarchy. whether methodologically or substantively. for instance. his work has inspired and defined the thinking even of such libertarians such as R.Bibliography on anarcho-Capitalism
Compiled by hans-hermann hoppe
h
ere is the essential reading on anarcho-capitalism. self-ownership. who have significantly deviated from Rothbard. and punishment. aggression. rothbard. Grounded in the tradition of natural law and in its style of axiomatic-deductive reasoning. rothbard and austro-Libertarianism at the top of any reading list on anarcho-capitalism must be the name Murray n. radical capitalism. but centrally important are: The Ethics of Liberty. contract. which might also be called the natural order. rothbard’s entire work is relevant to the subject of anarcho-capitalism. the most comprehensive presentation and defense of a libertarian law code yet written. original appropriation. I. private-property anarchy. There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without rothbard. Nozick. or society without a state. Murray n. only english-language works currently in print or forthcoming are included. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Rothbard explains the concepts of human rights. and offers smashing refutations of prominent limited-statist
65
. He demonstrates the moral unjustifiability of the state. the private-law society.

courts. and historical aspects of libertarianism. how would a stateless society provide for goods such as education. ranging from war and revolution to kids’ and women’s liberation. The Irrepressible Rothbard contains delightful libertarian commentary on political. rothbard shows his intellectual debt both to Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics (praxeology) and to Lysander spooner and Benjamin Tucker and individualist-anarchist political philosophy. tariffs. etc. F. compulsory cartels. and robert nozick.
. social security. In For A New Liberty rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems. streets. money.a. The four-volume Conceived in Liberty is a comprehensive narrative history of colonial america and the role of libertarian ideas and movements. written during the last decade of rothbard’s life. from price controls. patents. to any form of taxation (including Henry George’s proposed “single tax” on ground land).? here are the answers. Berlin. Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature is a marvelous collection of rothbard essays on philosophical. This collection is the best single introduction to rothbard and his libertarian research program.66
Chaos Theory
libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises. Power and Market is the most comprehensive theoretical analysis of the inefficiencies and counterproductive effects of every conceivable form of government interference with the market. environmental protection. licenses. rothbard’s magisterial two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought traces the development of libertarian economic and philosophical thought throughout intellectual history. I. and cultural issues. police. social. hayek. anti-trust laws. child labor laws. national defense. economic.

alternative approaches to anarcho-Capitalism The following authors come to similar conclusions but reach them in different ways and varying styles. mercenaries. Heavily influenced by F. II. randy e. and advocates a natural order with competitive security and insurance suppliers.Bibliography
67
Justin raimondo has written an insightful biography: Murray N. The Myth of National Defense is a collection of essays by an international assembly of social scientists concerning the relationship between state and war and the possibility of non-statist property defense: by militias. and reconsiders central questions of libertarian strategy. The austro-libertarian tradition inaugurated by rothbard is continued by hans-hermann hoppe. positivist. Rothbard: An Enemy of the State. and plain eclectic defenders of anarcho-capitalism. protectioninsurance agencies. historicist. but criticizes both as ethically and economically inefficient. he revises fundamental orthodox historical interpretations. there exist also utilitarian. Barnett uses the term “polycentric constitutional order” for anarcho-capitalism. guerrillas.
. while rothbard and Hoppe are natural-rightsers of sorts and praxeologists. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property includes Hoppe’s axiomatic defense of the principle of selfownership and original appropriation: anyone arguing against these principles is involved in a performative or practical contradiction. Barnett’s The Structure of Liberty is an outstanding discussion of the requirements of a liberal-libertarian society from the viewpoint of a lawyer and legal theorist. In Democracy—The God That Failed hoppe compares monarchy favorably to democracy. hayek.a. deontic. empiricist. etc.

) Gustave de Molinari’s pathbreaking 1849 article The Production of Security is probably the single most important contribution to the modern theory of anarcho-capitalism. easy to read. anthony de Jasay favors a deontic approach to ethics. the authors employ Ayn Rand’s pro-state argument in support of the opposite. David D. game-theoretic flavor. his writing—in The State. Brilliant critic of public choice and constitutional economics—and the notion of minarchism. with a neo-classical. and the excellent essay collection Against Politics—is theoretical. Morris and Linda Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty has a distinctly Randian flavor.). outstanding yet much neglected analysis of the operation of competing security producers (insurers. Contract. Consent. Precursors of Modern anarcho-Capitalism The contemporary anarcho-capitalist intellectual movement has a few outstanding nineteenth and early-twentieth century precursors. etc. Benson provides abundant empirical evidence for the efficient operation of market-produced law and order. However. anarchistic conclusion. in Choice. Even when sometimes deficient—the issue of ground land ownership in the tradition of herbert spencer and the theory of money and interest in the spooner-Tucker tradition—the following titles remain indispensable and largely unsurpassed. (This listing is chronological and systematic.68
Chaos Theory
Bruce L. Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom presents the utilitarian case for anarcho-capitalism: brief. and with many applications from education to property protection. rather than alphabetical. Benson’s sequel To Serve and Protect is likewise to be recommended. III. arbitrators. Molinari argues that
. Benson’s The Enterprise of Law is the most comprehensive empirical-historical study of anarcho-capitalism.

and that this also holds in the case of a monopoly of protection. will ever see government with the same eyes. predatory nature of the state. and explains the state as instrument of domination and exploitation. Franz oppenheimer is a left-anarchist German sociologist. is James J. Martin’s Men Against the State. the State he explains the anti-social. In Our Enemy. with particular attention to spooner and Benjamin Tucker. herbert is the father of Voluntaryism. auberon herbert is a student of spencer.” included in The Lysander Spooner Reader. Demands competition in the area of security production as for every other line of production. herbert spencer’s Social Statics is an outstanding philosophical discussion of natural rights in the tradition of John Locke.Bibliography
69
monopoly is bad for consumers. Lysander spooner is a nineteenth-century american lawyer and legal theorist. a concise history of individualist-anarchist thought and the related movement in nineteenth-century america. spooner makes mincemeat of the idea of a social contract. In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State. no one who has read “no Treason. Nock is influenced by Franz Oppenheimer. Albert J. and draws a sharp distinction between government as
. In The State he distinguishes between the economic (peaceful and productive) and the political (coercive and parasitic) means of wealth acquisition. also highly recommended are his Principles of Ethics. spencer defends the right to ignore the state. herbert develops the spencerian idea of equal freedom to its logically consistent anarcho-capitalist end.

Friedrich a. Possibly the most powerful anti-war book ever. with many important insights concerning the role of the aristocracy as defender of liberty and mass democracy as a promoter of state power. and likewise to be recommended is his Sovereignty. and historians in defense of the right to secession. is an important study on the “spontaneous” evolution of law. Legislation. natural order. nock in turn influenced Frank Chodorov. State. Exposes the aggressive nature of the state. Vol. and Liberty is a collection of essays by contemporary philosophers. On Power. anti-state political and economic commentary. Chodorov attacks taxation as robbery. Law. I. and Liberty. who would influence young Murray rothbard. the following are invaluable for a profound understanding of liberty. IV. Congenial writings while not directly concerned with the subject of anarchocapitalism and written by less-than-radical libertarian or even non-libertarian authors. a collection of pro-market.
. and the distinction of law versus legislation and between private and public law. related. David Gordon’s Secession. John V. Denson’s The Costs of War is a collection of essays by a distinguished group of libertarian and paleo-conservative scholars from various disciplines. is an outstanding account of the growth of state power.70
Chaos Theory
voluntarily acknowledged authority and the state. also to be recommended is Denson’s collection Reassessing the Presidency on the growth of state power. Bertrand de Jouvenel. hayek. and the state. In his Fugitive Essays. economists.

The Quest for Community (formerly published under the more descriptive title Community and Power) explains the protective function of intermediate social institutions.J. Hill. “Whither Anarchy? Has Robert Nozick Justified the state?. ——. The Journal of Libertarian Studies.Bibliography
71
Étienne de la Boétie.. “The American Experiment in AnarchoCapitalism. An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Review.1. rothbard and now edited by hans-hermann hoppe. and the tendency of the state to weaken and destroy these institutions in order to gain total control over the isolated individual.
. 1. The following JLS articles are most directly concerned with anarcho-capitalism. founded by Murray n. is the classic sixteenth-century inquiry into the source of government power.” 2. La Boétie shows that the state’s power rests exclusively on public “opinion. robert nisbet.” By implication. The Politics of Obedience.” 1.” 3. is an indispensable resource for any serious student of anarcho-capitalism and libertarian scholarship. is an earlier and in some regards superior treatment of topics similar to those discussed by hayek. every state can be made to crumble— instantly and without any violence—simply by virtue of a change in public opinion. “Toward a Theory of Legal naturalism. Bruno Leoni. and P. Freedom and the Law. Anderson. 2. Leoni portrays roman law as something discovered by independent judges rather than enacted or legislated by central authority—and thus akin to english common law. Barnett. Randy E. Terry.